Though operating in very different mediums, novelist John Steinbeck and filmmaker Preston Sturges were among the first American artists to explore philosophical solutions to the economic travesty that had gripped the national psyche since 1929 to 1941. Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath (1939) and Sturges's “Sullivan's Travels” (1941) emerged in the cultural dialogue far enough into the Depression years to allow each work to synthesize the trends of the era into broad and general information on the topic. the relationship between individuals in society. Steinbeck based his “law” in secular humanism and advocated the shift from greedy individualism to a more communal ideal. Using the Joad family as a representative case of the conversion from “I” to “we,” Steinbeck expands the definition of family from the strictly biological sense to a much broader notion of the human family. In this sense, the individual enters the human family through empathy. In contrast, Sullivan's theory holds that such conversion from “I” to “we” can never be complete. Empathy towards the plight of different social classes can never be achieved. Furthermore, the individual who attempts to experience a life that is not his own is ultimately a fake. Sullivan's "law" is therefore a return to one's true self, a self that possesses the powerful capacity for expression. Therefore, self-expression through art creates a primal human bond and thus appeases the plight of the oppressed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The Grapes of Wrath was Steinbeck's revolutionary, populist tale of the plight of migrant farm workers dispossessed of their lands during the Dust Bowl years of the Great Depression. Stigmatized as “Okies,” migrants packed their lives into rusty old cars and headed west, many times on Route 61, to the Promised Land. Steinbeck's novel centers on a representative family, the Joads, whose journey was one of spiritual conversion. Much to the horror of Ma Joad, who struggles to keep her family together during the journey, the Joads' exodus from their home leads to the near-complete dissolution of their biological family unit. Grandpa and Grandma Joad die; Noah Joad mysteriously wanders into the countryside, never to return; Al Joad chooses Agnes Wainwright over his own flesh and blood; and finally, Tom Joad goes on the run to avoid the legal consequences of his murderous acts. Ma Joad's complete loss of control over her family unit is indicative of the larger socioeconomic forces at work. He believes that “it is not good for people to separate,” but he can do nothing to stop his family from breaking up (Steinbeck 225). Steinbeck sees the forces as inexplicably nebulous and intertwined as part of a monolithic and ever-growing “monster” (43). The Joads and other Okies forced from their lands have been “trapped in something bigger than themselves,” something that profit-seeking men have created but can no longer control (51). Steinbeck's language echoes that of James Agee in his social documentary Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, also released in 1939. "How were we caught?" one of his subjects asks (Agee & Evans 81). Steinbeck seems as perplexed as his characters when it comes to assigning blame for this Depression-induced socioeconomic entrapment. He has no answers for the tenant who asks where it all ends – “Who can we shoot?” – because he seems more interested in changing the national mentality at the heart of the problem (Steinbeck 52).In line with the proposal of conversion from the biological to the transcendental family, Steinbeck also suggests a movement from the “I” to the “we”, from acquisitive individualism to collective individualism. Steinbeck writes: “For the quality of possessing freezes you forever in the 'I' and cuts you off forever from the 'we'” (206). This dichotomy has both spiritual and political components of the novel. But Joad, Rose of Sharon and Jim Casy embody the theoretical-spiritual union of “I” and “we”; Tom Joad represents the practical-political side with his involvement in trade unions. Both components rely on empathy to bridge the gap between “I” and “we.” “Wherever there is a fight so that hungry people can eat, I will be there,” Tom declares before leaving his family. (Steinbeck 572). Sturges's “Sullivan's Travels” treats Steinbeck's “I” versus “we” ethic as inauthentic and incredulous. The film centers on established Hollywood director John L. Sullivan (Joel McCrea) and his quest to escape the excess and superficiality of his social condition to experience the plight of the suffering classes. “I want to hold up a mirror to life,” he proclaims. “I want this to be an image of dignity, a true canvas of humanity's suffering!” Throughout the film Sturges reiterates that Sully's plan, while mostly sincere, is entirely inauthentic and phony. He tries five times to escape the golden shackles of his socioeconomic status, to "find trouble," and succeeds only once. Sully's last effort feels authentic given the desperation of his situation as part of the prison gang; however, an argument could easily be made to refute this claim. After all, Sully's "escape" from prison is simple enough: he simply must assert his true identity to return to a comfortable life in the arms of a beautiful woman (Veronica Lake). Sully sets out to manifest the conversion of the “I” to Steinbeck's “we” through empathy and ultimately fails in this attempt. Ultimately, Sully's journey is a return from “we” to “I.” By the film's conclusion, Sully no longer entertains the idea that sincere empathy can bridge social distances. Perhaps each individual has their own studio tag sewn into their boot. Perhaps this is why he will never truly be able to "walk in someone else's shoes". Contrary to Tom Joad's certainty that "[he] will be there," Sully decides to move away from the "I"-we project entirely, instead finding answers in the most rudimentary definition of what it means to be human. He sees promise in the primal quality of laughter: “There's a lot to be said for making people laugh. Did you know that this is all some people have? It's not much, but it's better than nothing in this wacky caravan. Sully sees raw human emotions as a great equalizer, as individuals from all social strata possess the same emotional capabilities. Therefore, Sullivan's “law” holds that individuals should be true to themselves and create valuable works of human expression – such as art, literature, and film – which will in turn arouse human emotions. It is in this common experience of raw emotions that individuals are truly united. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Steinbeck ends his novel with the powerful image of Rose of Sharon nursing a hungry old man in an abandoned barn somewhere in California. Steinbeck uses breastfeeding because such an act almost always involves a mother-child, and therefore biological, relationship. By offering her milk to the dying, Rose of Sharon validates his conversion from the biological to the transcendental, from “I” to “we.” For Steinbeck,., 1941.